Yearly Archives: 2012

On Feb. 11, 2010, the plaintiff traveled to the defendants’ home to see a dog that she was considering adopting. The defendants were the dog’s “foster family,” set up through an animal rescue network. The plaintiff was greeted at the ...

Where the defendant, who pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition and a firearm, received a 60-month sentence of incarceration — 19 months beyond the top of the guidelines sentencing range (GSR) of 33-41 months — and three years of supervised release, the sentence is not tainted by procedural error and is not substantively unreasonable, and thus the sentence should be affirmed.

Where (1) plaintiffs brought suit for patent infringement, (2) the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction — based on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,575,886 — was allowed and (3) the defendants have filed an emergency motion to stay or dissolve that preliminary injunction, the defendants have not set forth a convincing basis for a stay or dissolution and consequently the emergency motion should be denied without prejudice.

Where Chapter 13 debtors, who refinanced the mortgage on their home with a $250,000 loan, now seek to rescind the loan transaction pursuant to §10(a) of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, summary judgment is unwarranted given a factual issue regarding the notice received by the debtors at the closing.

Lawyers say a Supreme Judicial Court decision limiting the ability to equitably toll statutes of limitations based on fraudulent concealment in multi-party cases heightens the standard for plaintiffs in a wide range of common-law claims.

Where counsel for a defendant debtor, having obtained summary judgment on a complaint filed by a plaintiff creditor, has requested compensation for services in the sum of $10,683.75 and reimbursement of expenses in the sum of $45.98, the request should be granted but in smaller amounts.

Where a judge terminated the parental rights of a mother and father and ordered that the daughter of their child’s great-uncle be named as the child’s sole adoptive parent, the plan for adoption must be vacated because there was insufficient evidence that the great-uncle’s daughter was willing and able to adopt the child.

Where a divorced decedent did not maintain life insurance for the benefit of his daughter as required by a divorce judgment and a judge ordered the decedent’s estate to pay $200,000 to the plaintiff ex-wife, (1) the evidence is sufficient to establish a breach of the agreement but (2) the plaintiff was not entitled to bring such an action on her own behalf and for her own benefit.